Frequently Asked Questions

Click on any question below to reveal the answer. Click again to collapse. Got questions? Contact us!

What would you say proves your papal claimant as Pope of the Universal Church as valid?

The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot become Pope any more than an unbaptized person or a woman. This is stated in the Papal Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV in paragraph 6.

Diocesan Bishops as the Ecclesia Docens (Teaching Church) are held to a higher level in regard to doctrine. It is their duty to see to it that everything taught in their diocese is true Catholic doctrine. Canon Law gives them the right and duty to judge matters of heresy in their own diocese and to absolve from the excommunication for heresy. Therefore they are required to know Catholic teaching. If they commit the crime of heresy, they are presumed to have done so willingly. Therefore they are presumed to incur all of the penalties attached to heresy.

Heretics resign all offices they may hold in the Church and Canon Law accepts their resignation without need of any declaration on the part of a superior.

The Second Vatican Council taught heresy in several documents, including but not limited to the Decree on the Liturgy, the Decree on Ecumenism and the Decree on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.

All but four bishops present voted for the Decree on the Liturgy. Also, unless they state otherwise, all of the bishops present are presumed to have signed all of the decrees of Vatican II. Such is an act of notorious public heresy. Therefore by the end of Vatican II, every bishop present had resigned his office by the commission of public heresy, including the Bishop of Rome, John the Baptist Montini, who had taken the name of Paul VI.

And thus, by the end of Vatican II there was only one Cardinal left, Cardinal Mindszenty, and no Pope. With the Papacy vacant, the Church needed a Pope. Mindszenty died in 1975, therefore the Church had no Cardinals to elect a Pope.

When the Church is without Cardinals, theologians and canonists teach that she must supply herself with a Pope in an extraordinary manner. This they teach is a matter of the Natural Law, since a perfect society always has the ability to supply itself with a ruler. The Church is a perfect society, so it is always possible to elect a Pope, here and now.

The first principle is that the first elected has the Papacy. This is known as first in time, first in right. Also nothing invalidates the election of a Pope, except the election of someone not qualified by Divine Law. Divine Law holds that the unbaptized, women and heretics cannot be elected as Pope. Ecclesiastical Law cannot regulate who may be elected Pope. Every attempt to issue such a law has been set aside by the election of someone not qualified. One such attempt was to limit election to the Cardinals. The electors set this aside by electing someone who was not a Cardinal. Fraud and even simony do not render an election of a Pope invalid.

A reasonable attempt must be made to summon the electors after an office becomes vacant. Those who appear on the day appointed are the electors. Even the absence of a majority of qualified electors does not render an election invalid as history proves.

Beginning in the early 1970's both the fact of the vacancy of the papacy and the necessity of electing a Pope was discussed by Catholics. On July 16, 1990 a group of Catholics assembled and elected David Bawden as Pope, who took the name of Pope Michael. This group made every effort possible to notify all those who might be qualified, including contacting each and every chapel listed as sedevacantist, meaning that they believed the papacy was vacant.

Is it possible to obtain a list of who was invited to the conclave?

A list of all of those we personally notified is kept somewhere in the archives. However, that list would not be complete, because some of those we notified in turn notified others.

Each and every bishop consecrated in the Thuc-des Lauriers and Thuc-Carmona lines was notified of the election. This would have been done not only by us, but by the late Miss Heidi Hagen of Geneva, Switzerland, who had contact with them as well.

All of the sedevacantist listings in the late Radko K Jansky's Traditionalist Catholic Directory, which he published from Saint Louis, Missouri. It contained listings of all Traditionalist chapels in the world. He made a serious effort to keep it up to date until shortly before his death in about 1991.

Notable people, who were contacted in addition to the above would be Malachi Martin, who personally endorsed the pre-election book, Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? Elizabeth Gerstner was notified. Also Doctors Hiller and Heller of Einsicht out of Germany, a sedevacantist publication. The publishers of Veritas out of Louisville, Kentucky were notified.

At one point over 200 packages with the pre-election book were sent out worldwide.

What were the reasons given for not attending the conclave? Or were you simply ignored.

Most simply ignored. A few wrote against the election. We know Bishop Louis Vezelis of the Thuc Carmona, Musey line wrote against the election, but do not know what he said.

N Martin Gwynne and John Daly wrote Briton's Catholic Library Letter number 7 against the pre-election book and sent copies to us. It had no substantial objections. As I recall, they wanted us to wait for Enoch and Elias to come and appoint a Pope. John Daly and Martin Gwynne have since separated. Their objections came in after the election, although they had been aware of it for months before.

A few objected that it was not the appropriate time, but gave no appropriate time. With a vacancy over ten times longer than the longest previously, we considered this could be dismissed. The second Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Loyons states in part: “Where a greater danger exists, there without doubt a fuller deliberation is necessary. How grave are the losses resulting from a prolonged vacancy, and how full of dangers it is to the Roman Church, is shown by prudent consideration of the past. Hence, a manifest reason urges us that, while we are engaged in the reformation of minor matters, we do not leave without remedy for suitable reform those things that are more dangerous.”

Kenneth Mock came with Father Patrick Henry CMRI. Mock said we should wait until a priest could be found with faculties to absolve us from any possible excommunication we had incurred for participation in the Traditionalist movement. We had publicly renounced any and all errors of this movement. When pressed, he could not find such a priest, and indeed no such priest existed. The penalties for participation in the Traditionalist Movement are reserved to the Pope, but the papacy was vacant. Canon Law also allows the Local Ordinary, that is the Bishop of our own Diocese, to absolve. However, all of these Sees were vacant. After that conversation, Mock and Henry left, saying they would pray on it. Mock left a message on the answering machine the next morning that they would not be participating.

Thomas Hemple and two of his sons, Matthew and Albert arrived late to the place of election. They had been notified well in advance and again closer to the time of the election. One would presume that people coming to such an important affair would indicate they are coming and arrive the day before as Mock and Henry did. Thomas Hemple had been working with Dr. Benjamin Franklin Dryden for years on a papal election. Attempt was made to contact Dr. Dryden, but he died before the election best we could find out.

Father (later Bishop) Jose Lopez-Gaston expressed interest in coming to the election. However, at the last minute he sent a letter indicating he would not come, but giving no reason. He had been ordained by Bishop Carmona.

Were there any clergy in Rome invited to the conclave?

Attempts were made to contact people and clergy in Rome.

Was Vatican II the Beginning of the Crisis in the Church?

Many date the problems in the Catholic Church to the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, called by Antipope John XXIII-II, and the liturgical changes that flowed from its spirit.

On December 4, 1963, Vatican II issed the decree Sacrosanctum concilium on the liturgy. Even before the close of the Council in 1965, supporting instructions began to be issued to implement this decree and a series of changes in the Mass, Rites of the Sacraments and the liturgy as a whole began to be implemented. As these became more radical, people began to notice them and begin to take action. For this reason, this time period of the changes as they came to be called from 1960 until 1972, when the Novus Ordo Missae (New Rite of the Mass) was fully implemented and the Rites of the Sacraments had all been substantially changed, except for Baptism, came to be identified as the beginning of the Crisis in the Church.

First of all the liturgical changes, which were a disaster, are only a symptom of a far deeper problem.

Much can be said on these liturgical changes, but they are only the tip of the iceberg.

Above we placed a date of 1960, when Antipope John XXIII-II issued the decree Rubricarum Instructum. Although there is nothing objectionable in the decree itself, the principle upon the changes made at the time are dubious at best. The revision of the calendar denigrated the Blessed Virgin Mary, demoting some of her feasts to mere commemorations. It also removed some feasts as useless repetitions, a principle repeated in Vatican II: “The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (Paragraph 34 of Sacrosanctam concilium) A supporting decree to Rubricarum Instrucutm said historical lessons of the Breviary needed to be corrected to insure of their historical accuracy. Also some feasts were removed as useless repetitions as well. And so the spirit of Modernism was now becoming an official part of the Church.

However the rottenness that led to Vatican II had been working for over a century. It is said that the Devil told St. John Vianney, “If there were three such priests as you, my kingdom would be ruined.” Consider this well. The first conclusion is that there were not three priests as zealous as Saint John Vianney. The rottenness was already happening. Although we can trace the problems to before the Protestant Revolt nearly five centuries ago, it became worse in the 19th century with the heresies of Liberalism and Modernism.

Liberalism begat Modernism as a bastard child.

In his Encyclical, Pascendi, against Modernism in 1907, Pope Saint Pius X warned: “That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.” 1 He realized that The Enemy had already begun infiltrating the Church.

And we should immediately clarify who The Enemy is. Saint Paul tells us: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” 2 So our real enemy is the Devil, not our fellow men. However, we should know that some people work willingly with the Devil for the destruction of the Devil's main enemy, the Church of God, the Catholic Church.

Many look at the various people involved, and consider they are The Enemy. They may be working with The Enemy, but they are poor souls in need of our prayers for their conversion.

Read Carefully

Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI wrote: ‟For believers, it was a remarkable phenomenon that their bishops seemed to show a different face in Rome from the one they wore at home. Shepherds who had been considered strict conservatives suddenly appeared to be spokesmen for progressivism.” 3

First Joseph Ratzinger is saying that the bishops had been looking Catholic at home, but when they got to Vatican II, they realized that this was no longer necessary, as the Papacy had been usurped by John XXIII. Basically, while the cat is away the mice will play. In other words, they had already determined to betray our Lord Jesus Christ, but were awaiting the appropriate time. They had already been corrupted by the world, the flesh and the devil, but especially by The Enemy.

We have discussed the infiltration of the Catholic Church. The Enemy works through Secret Societies, such as the Masons, the Illuminati, the Rosicrucians, the Priory of Zion, and even certain elements of Jews. (To call this a Jewish Conspiracy is to limit the operations of The Enemy. This is a trap many have fallen in to with disastrous consequences.) Even the Communists sent in covert operatives to assist The Enemy. Pope Saint Pius X knew these agents were at work and attempted to halt their activity, but was unsuccessful.

But to lay the blame for this crisis at the feet of those men who dedicated their lives to destroying the Catholic Church is a great error.

Actually the main problems were the bishops and priests, who lived a worldly life.

They failed to teach their flocks how to pray fervently, because they themselves were lukewarm. “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” (Apocalypse 3:16) All Christians must be on fire with the love of God. Most had let their light go out. “No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light.” (Luke 11:23) Bishops and priests, who are supposed to be the leaders of the light of the world, (Matthew 5:14) let their lamps go out like the foolish virgins. (Matthew 25:1-13)

Vatican II was the culmination of centuries of work, which began in earnest in the fifteenth century with Huss and Wycliffe. Their spiritual children, beginning with Martin Luther, started the Protestant Revolt, separating millions from Jesus Christ's Church. And this continued with heresies, such as Jansenism and Gallicanism in the seventeenth century. The eighteenth century saw the foundation of the first Constitutionally atheistic country in history, the United States and at the same time the French Revolution, both of which declared the rights of man. These two revolts declared that man has a right to practice whatever religion he pleases and that the government can in no way interfere with this right. In other words, everyone now has the right to be wrong and to preach falsehood to any and all who will listen.

Pope Pius IX reminded us of the principle that error has no rights, nor should it ever have rights. At best it may be tolerated to prevent some worse evil. However, we must always remember that error is an evil.

Vatican II declared the doctrine that error has rights in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.”

Pope Pius IX condemned this in the Syllabus of Errors: “79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.” And “77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.” And further: “78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.”

In his book, Les Principe des Theologie Catholique, Joseph Ratzinger states: ‟Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of the Vatican II Constitution, Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789.” What Ratzinger is saying is that Vatican II changed the errors condemned in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX into truth, which is impossible. Can two plus two equal four a century ago and twenty-two today?

Truth cannot change, but this is what Vatican II said. However, the seeds of this were planted long ago, and they have now grown into a large tree. Pope Saint Pius X condemned the errors of Modernism and his predecessor Pope Pius IX also condemned these errors as have other Popes. As we have seen, Pope Saint Pius X knew that these errors were held not only by those outside of the Church, but by those in her very bosom. Unfortunately his efforts to rid the Church of these wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15) was unsuccessful and over the next half of a century they moved forward and were able to call the Council, which is falsely called Vatican II. It is not a successor to the only Vatican Council held in 1869-70, but a convention of heretics much like the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia held several centuries earlier. In fact, some of the errors of the Synod of Pistoia can be found also in Vatican II.

If there was no pope after 1958, why aren't all sedevacantists united under you? Isn't it important to have a pope?

Since there was no pope after 1958, the cardinals should have elected one, and some sedevacantists tried to arrange for this but were unable to do so. After that didn’t work, three ways to resolve this situation were proposed: 1) sedeprivationism, as was mentioned above, where conciliar claimants could transform from “material popes” to actual or “formal popes” by renouncing modernist heresies like those which prevented Roncalli from being elected in 1958; 2) sedevacantists could wait for God to miraculously elect a pope.

Some say that the Blessed Virgin Mary will designate someone as pope, some say Sts. Peter and Paul would designate a pope, or Elias and Elijah. However it were to happen, these sedevacantists are praying for a divine intervention to solve the problem. 3) Conclavism, or we elect a pope with the remaining sedevacantist laymen and clergy, following the elections of the Catholic Church where laymen and clergy participated.

“Conclavism” is just a word to describe basically the general idea of what particularly happened with pope Michael’s election. We reject the #1 sedeprivationist idea because someone’s either pope or not, and we believe the conciliar claimants are not popes, therefore there was no pope and we ought to proceed to elect a pope.

The #2 seeking for a miracle was never required in a past papal interregnum (time when there is no pope), nor is it laid down in the canon law that we ought to forgo elections and wait on such a miracle, nor does this seem necessary since we were capable of an election with the sedevacantist remnant.

Therefore, we have concluded that this also is not the correct resolution but that we ought to elect a pope and did so in 1990 with pope Michael’s election.

Why Weren't Three Bishops Employed in the Consecration of Pope Michael ?

First of all, no independent bishop, such as the Old Catholics, Duarte Costa, Thucite or Lefebvrite wish to truly submit to ecclesiastical authority or the Pope. Recall that three of the four went into schism immediately, the Old Catholics, Duarte Costa and the Lefebvrites. The Thucites began with the idea of ending the vacancy, which would give them justification for consecrating a bishop or two until such could be organized. However, when they abandoned the election of a Pope, they all went into schism, save Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc himself. We have no certainty about his intentions at the end of his life.

Another Pope,(PELAGIUS I. — a. d. 555), was consecrated by only two bishops, being unable to find a third bishop to consecrate him, and this in Rome itself. The Church has always held that a single bishop can validly consecrate another. Three is the traditional requirement, that has some times been dispensed with.

Why Aren't the names of the last Bishops in your lineage not found, on the Internet?

Some bishops and jurisdictions1 do not publish online, preferring to keep their ministry on the local level. Other bishops have gone into retirement, and they have not consecrated another bishop who has an online presence. Pope Michael has had personal contact with several such bishops:

Bishop Webster, Thuc line.

Bishop Michael, Duarte-Costa

Bishop Robinson, Old Catholic

Also there are other bishops, who are not online, but known to Pope Michael

1Knowing that a bishop should have authority of jurisdiction, Old Catholics and Duarte-Costa bishops set up jurisdictions and then claim authority over them.

Who is Pope Michael and how is he related to the Catholic Church?

In 1958, cardinal Roncalli was elected as “John 23rd”, and many accepted him as pope. However it has subsequently been shown that he was a pre-election modernist heretic and unable to be elected. Therefore, there was no pope at that time, and this problem continued onward for many years.

There were some talks about electing a pope, but instead many followed the lineage in the Vatican which we believe to be invalid because of its compromise with the Catholic Faith. Cardinals should have proceeded to an election of a pope since Roncalli’s election did not produce a pope but an invalid election, but they did not do so.

The traditional bishops and clergy did not prevent this invalid election of Roncalli or respond by electing a pope, so this shifted the burden of electing a pope to the laymen. Therefore, pope Michael called for a papal election among as many known sedevacantist chapels as possible, using Radko Janskey’s listings of traditional Catholic masses, and was elected pope in 1990 by 6 laymen. (Sedevacantists then believed correctly that there was no pope; there are still sedevacantists today who reject pope Michael’s election)

So we believe pope Michael is pope of the Catholic Church, and that most churches that claim to be Catholic today, including “pope” Francis in the Vatican, are non-Catholic and are like a counterfeit Catholicism. Just like a fake dollar bill, this counterfeit Catholicism, which is sometimes called the “conciliar church”, looks like Catholicism but is not due to a substantial change in Catholic teaching which attempted to deny Catholic teaching or accept heresies as Catholic teaching.

Therefore, in response to this rise in a counterfeit of Catholicism, we have worked to conserve the Catholic Church with the unchangeable dogmatic teachings the Catholic Faithful profess.

What are these other groups, sedevacantists and SSPX and so on?

Anyone who accepts Vatican 2’s teachings and the conciliar “popes” professes communion with the conciliar church in the Vatican. This includes many churches today one might see who claim to be Catholic, and which were probably actually Catholic if they existed prior to 1958.

There are those in the “indult” groups of “latin mass” communities which accept Francis as “pope” (as of this writing in 2015), including the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) and “latin mass” locations listed on the Ecclesia Dei Commission listings. Then there is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) which rejects Vatican 2 but accepts the conciliar claimants to the papacy.

There are a few priests who have the same views on who is pope and Vatican 2 and operate in a similar way to the SSPX and call themselves “independent” priests.

Sedeprivationists believe that conciliar claimants to the papacy are “material, but not formal” popes. They believe the conciliar elections had some validity but that the person elected did not totally become pope. Sedevacantists believe that there is currently no pope. Among sedevacantists, some reject sedevacantist clergy and are called “home aloners”, as they stay at home and pray for the situation to be rectified today.

Then there are conclavists, which generally refers to sedevacantists who have held a papal election. Pope Michael’s election is the first serious conclavist election which we can verify. A few elections followed after his, with some resigning or otherwise dying of old age with no successor.

From the above mentioned indult to sedevacantist groups mentioned, we sometimes call these “traditionalism” to refer to in a sense another group of churches distinct from the conciliar church, but which we do not consider to be the Catholic Church.

You state that there has been no Pope since Pius XII, is this correct?

Yes, this is the position I hold. No Pope until my election.

The reason why John XXIII was not a Pope was that he was a heretic before and after his election?

John XXIII was a public heretic prior to his apparent election by statements and actions he had made in France and Venice. His file in Rome was marked as suspected of Modernism. He also made heretical statements after his apparent election.

Without getting into the question of formal versus material heresy, would it have made a difference if he were not a heretic before his election?

If he had not been a heretic prior to his election, then he would have become Pope. However, notorious public heresy after election removes one from Office. (Canon 188, paragraph 4) Canonists, though, are not in agreement in how to deal with such a problem.

To continue the line of reasoning above since the college which elected John XXIII knew he was a heretic then they became also heretics which automatically deposed them (electors) of their authority both collectively and individually in the Church?

Some would have known of Roncalli's heresy, but some might not have known. John XXIII appointed so many to the Cardinalate, that the 1963 election could not have been valid, which is why we focused on John XXIII.

They (Electors) all lost their offices because they participated in the election?

Yes, by electing an unqualified man, they tendered their resignations by schism in accepting him as Pope. (Canon 188, paragraph 4)

Those who knew and opposed John XXIII, but did not publicly accuse him of heresy, were they also culpable, and lost their authority as well?

This would also be true, if they did not fully expose the problem.

Was the council that Pope XXII also heretical because of the results of his heresy?

The Council was not automatically heretical, but was not an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, because only the Pope can call such a Council.

Is it your opinion that because of their acquiescence regarding John XXIII the Bishops, and in turn the clergy throughout the Church, therefore shared in the heresy as if a virus spread throughout the whole Church?

Actually they became schismatics for accepting a man as Pope, who indeed was not Pope.

Is it your opinion that if a priest once celebrated the Novus Ordo then he was forever heretical?

I hold that the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae is an act of heresy, because of the problems noted by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, as well as the invalid form of consecration of the wine used in the vernacular in most languages until a few years ago. (They translated pro multis as for all, which is a false invalidating translation.) A priest can renounce his heresy, but may not function as a priest until reconciled by the Pope.

Is it your opinion that a priest can never effectively recant from celebrating the NO mass and regain non heretical status?

No, a priest can return to the Church by renouncing his heresy, and seeking absolution from the Pope. He must approach either the Pope or his Local Ordinary (Bishop), who can absolve him from excommunication. However, only the Pope can restore such a man to functioning as a priest again.

Were the specific pronouncements made by Vatican II were also heretical in total? Or, only selective pronouncements or documents? If only selected ones, why?

No, parts of Vatican II may not be heretical.

To answer the second question, Pope Pius VI issued the decree Auctorem Fidei to condemn the errors of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia. He extracted the errors and then condemned them. Some of the propositions may not have been heretical or even erroneous, as heretics do not reject all doctrines, only some of them.

Since the occupants of the papal chair since Pius XII have been non Popes, the Council a heretical council, therefore there has been no legitimate framework for the election of a new Pope all the years subsequent to John's election?

There was not legitimate framework under the law for electing a Pope, but under the Natural Law as a Perfect Society, the Church always has the means to elect a Pope.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law suffers the defect of being promulgated by a Non-Pope with no authority to change or reform the previous Church Law? Also there could not have been valid and licit changes in the liturgical calendar of the Church, nor its Liturgy...or its canonized Saints?

All the actions of The Roman usurpers from John XXIII through Paul VI, John Paul II the Great Deceiver, Benedict and Francis have been invalid. The 1983 Code of Canon Law must be rejected as well as all of their canonizations and liturgical changes.

Do you agree that the only necessary condition for papal candidacy is for the person to be a baptized male Catholic?

Yes, this is the teaching of the Church, as Ecclesiastical Law cannot limit who may be elected, as history proves.

Do you believe that a layman could be elected a Pope, not withstanding discussion of the manner of election?

Yes, a layman can be elected.

Are you of the belief that the Pope, even though not a priest or member of the clergy when elected, must receive Holy Orders after election in order to remain the Pope?

Pope Pius XII addresses this in an address to a Catholic Action group: “If a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only with the condition of being ready and willing to receive ordination; the capacity to teach and govern, as well as the charism of infallibility, would be granted to him as of the moment of its acceptance, even before his ordination.” If a man refused to be ordained, then some canonists hold that he did not truly accept election, since ordination and consecration are an essential part of the Office of Bishop of Rome.

Are You Roman Catholic?

The Fathers of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) discussed an official name for the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It was proposed to call the Church the Roman Catholic Church, because the Church is in union with the Bishop of Rome, also called the Pope, as the Fathers of the Church say is required to be in the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Bishops of England objected to this and asked to be heard by the Council. One of their number explained their reasoning. In England at the time, the Anglicans had proposed what is called the Branch Theory. In this theory, the Church had three branches, Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican. The Bishops said to call us anything more than Catholics would give credence to this theory. The Council accepted this objection and decided that we should not be called Roman Catholics, but merely Catholics as we have been for centuries.